The Least Important Worst Disaster in History

President Obama on a Louisiana beach in May 2010. Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images.

Back in the summer, it was impossible to escape the Gulf oil spill. Images of dark slicks spreading across the ocean, tar balls piling up on Florida beaches, and fishermen stranded on the Louisiana shore flashed across TV screens 24 hours a day. As polls showed that most people didn’t believe the White House had a coherent plan to clean up the spill, commentators speculated it might help the Republicans in the 2010 midterms(even G.O.P. congressman Joe Barton’s absurd apology to BP didn’t seem to do much damage) and headlines blared that the disaster was “Obama’s Katrina.”Yet, six months after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, the spill has all but disappeared from the news. Chilean miners and Christine O’Donnell’s history with witchcraft have sucked up primetime oxygen instead. A draft report from the national oil-spill commission criticizing Obama’s handling of the crisis barely registered a blip on the media radar.

And recent polls show that the spill isn’t exerting much influence on the November elections. Even in big races along the Gulf Coast—in Louisiana, for instance—debates over the disaster seem to be having little impact in the lead-up to Election Day. According to Daniel Smith, professor of political science at the University of Florida, the spill’s fading public presence may actually have cost Florida governor Charlie Crist some ground in his Senate bid. “[Crist] certainly had a clear distinction between himself and Marco Rubio on the question of drilling,” Smith says. “It’s taken that issue from Crist and has diminished his profile.”

On the one hand, it’s easy to blame the national media’s A.D.D. approach to news. Outlets will always chase a hot story—but only while it’s hot. (Which reminds me, I should ask CNN how Haiti is doing after that tragic earthquake.) As soon as the leaking well was plugged and oil began evaporating from the surface of the Gulf, stories about 33 guys trapped a half-mile underground and Tea Party candidates ousting incumbents made for better television. “Once it was seen that that damage was not as severe [as predicted], the story became Page 5 rather than Page 1,” says Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University. Granted, we’re talking about immediate damage here; it will be several yearsbefore we can fully assess the spill’s long-term effects.

On the other hand, however, these midterm elections were always going to ride on one thing: the economy. One in seven Americans is living in poverty, and the unemployment rate is hovering near 10 percent. The oil spill—although it certainly affected the Gulf Coast’s economy—feels distant, almost intangible to the U.S. public when compared with the worst recession in decades. (It doesn’t help that, in public-opinion polls, the environment has long taken a backseatto other issues.)

But could the spill come back to haunt the Obama administration two years down the road? As Felicia Sonmez, of The Washington Post, pointed out last week, “The fight over spinning the spill (and the administration's response to it) may perhaps begin in earnest post-November. If that's the case, then Obama, who has put a premium on competence, may have as much at stake as anyone.” Indeed, the national oil-spill commission will release its final report in January. If it cites the administration as somehow contributing to the cause of the spill or worsening its fallout, Republicans could say those actions signal that Obama (and the Democrats generally) can’t govern, particularly in a crisis. What’s more, this narrative could enhance the political fortunes of some Republican politicians in the Gulf region—namely Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who made headlinesfor his response to the disaster, including his criticisms of the federal government. (Some observers, however, have said Jindal’s rebukes of Washington were muddled.)

Still, these are all just hypotheticals. Who knows what will happen between now and 2012? The commission could praise the administration’s response to the spill, or the White House could defend its actions successfully to the public. “The administration did the right thing. Perhaps not quite soon enough for some, and maybe it didn’t explain its efforts quite as well as it might have done,” says Jeffry Burnam, visiting professor of government at Georgetown University. “But the well is plugged, restoration efforts are under way, and a major compensation fund has been set up.”

What seems more certain is that, in the next presidential race, the spill will again be overshadowed by the economy. Barring disaster—like yet another rig blowing before the election—unemployment, spending, housing, and business growth will still be dominating public discourse and opinion in 2012. After this year’s midterms, Gans says, “Republicans will at minimum have veto power of what goes through Congress, and therefore there won’t be very many things that will get done. We’ll be looking at a polarized election between a far-right Republican Party and a failed presidency in the middle of a recession. It’s not a pleasant prospect.”

In other words, the economy will likely be “Obama’s Katrina”—the major crisis that the president is accused of mishandling. The oil spill, meanwhile, will continue to wash up along the political periphery.